Q. Now, if he considered you as General Ohlendorft's deputy, would he have some basis for that statement?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, this basis can only result from the picture that he found when he arrived at the staff, and the reason was that.........I was the senior officer on the staff.
Q. All right. Let us go a little further. Let us consider your own affidavit which is contained in Document Book III-D, page 34 of the English, page 60 of the German, which is Document 2859, and is Prosecution's Exhibit 158. What does the last sentence in the first paragraph read?
A. As senior officer of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the Gruppe whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the Gruppe.
Q. Isn't this a normal function of a deputy when the chief is absent......to take over all the tasks?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, then I could not have already stated, one or two sentences, before, and I quote, "I was never appointed the deputy of Ohlendorf for the Einsatzgruppe D." I would not have made this statement and then said the contrary two sentences afterwards; but this only applies to "within the Gruppe".......the staff itself, and I think I have made that quite clear. But that does not mean that I had any authority over the kommando leaders.
Q. Well, did Ohlendorf when he was present, issue orders to kommandos?
A. Certainly.
Q. And this was one of his tasks, as Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when he was absent did you take over this task, too?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, there were no daily tasks or orders. Otherwise, Ohlendorf could not have been on the road for weeks at a stretch without authorizing and appointing a deputy within the staff. But basic orders had been given before. And when Ohlendorf was absent in April he could, of course, not have passed on any orders to the kommando, but that does not include the fact that at this time I could have given the orders, but the kommando leaders were his deputies for their own departments.
Q. You stated you could have given orders during the time in April and May 1942 when Ohlendorf was absent?
A. No. Not in that form.
Q. You just stated that you could have, while Ohlendorf was absent on the road, give orders.
A. I must have expressed it wrongly somehow. The opportunity could have been given for my giving orders, but I could only have given orders in those matters for which I held the authority, namely, for my sphere of tasks in Department III.
Q. Well, then, in effect you state that the sentence which you have just read to the Tribunal isn't true.
A. No, I did not state that. This sentence is true.
Q. Well, which is correct? You say now that you could only give orders for your own spere, and in your affidavit, you could take over all tasks and give orders.
A. Tasks which were dealt with within the staff, yes.
Q. Then you stated that Ohlendorf gave orders to Einsatzkommandos when he was there.
A. Yes.
Q. That was the normal task of a Chief of a Gruppe? That order was given in the staff for transmission to the kommandos?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, could you take over this same task when Ohlendorf was not there?
A. No. It says, at the beginning of the page, "Chief of the Einsatzgruppe."
Q. Let me interrupt you a minute. Let us go back to this sentence. This sentence as you wrote it in you affidavit and signed it, is not correct, is it?
A. What sentence, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q. The last sentence in paragraph one of your own affidavit. That should be on page 60 of the German copy.
A. The sentence is correct. I have stated that within the Gruppe........that is the term which we used......and that actually means the staff only......and insofar this sentence is correct.
Q. All right. What does the word "all" mean? "For all tasks"?
A. You mean where it says "all"...... Those were the tasks which happened, which came up during my time.
Q. That's right. And if they involved giving orders to kommandos in the field that was part of your tasks when General Ohlendorf was absent, wasn't it?
A. No, that could not have been my task because I was not the deputy of Ohlendorf for the kommando leaders.
Q. Well, then, this sentence does not mean "all" tasks, then?
A. It means, as it says here, all tasks within the Gruppe, which means within the staff.
Q. Perhaps the German says that, but the English certainly doesn't.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's get the German, then. Don't let's stop there. Let's find out what the German says. If the German is as he says, then the English should be corrected.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, do you distinguish between the staff as such and all the kommandos which go to make up the Einsatzgruppe?
A. Yes.
Q. Then explain, if you will, why.......in this statement you say, "as senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe".........there we have the distinction......."staff of the Einsatzgruppe", you say, "I took over all tasks within the Group" - not within the staff, but within the Group. Now please explain that .
A. There it says within the Group. That can only mean within the staff, your Honor.
Q. But why can it only mean that, when in the very previous clause you go to the trouble of saying "staff of the Einsatzgruppe"?
A. Because it is the usual term, the terminology which says.......
Q. Why would you not have said, if the meaning is what you now tell us, "As senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the staff"? Why didn't you use "staff" there, instead of Group?
A. Your Honor, if I had formulated this affidavit myself I would have written "staff".....but I, in this case, understood this to be staff, and therefore I made no correction.
Q. Well, why did you understand it to be staff when it said Group, especially when you now tell us that had you written it out in your own hand you would have used the word staff and not Group?
A. Because the expression can be misunderstood, as actually is happening at the moment. For me it was clean...
Q. Yes, and that is the very reason why, when you had the affidavit before you, and you saw that a misunderstanding could arise, why didn't you correct it then?
A. I could not assume that, your Honor, after I had affirmed a few minutes before that I had not been deputy chief of the Einsatzgruppe. That's on the same page.
Q. Did you read this over carefully before you signed it?
A. I read through it, and then Mr. Wartenberg told me that if I had any corrections or changes to make I had to announce it before each change, and then I had to discuss it with Mr. Wartenberg for quite some time, in what shape or form I could change it, and in eight or ten cases this was done.
Q. Yes, well, then, why didn't you change this particular statement?
A. First of all, because two sentences before I stated that I was not the deputy chief; and secondly, this distinction did not strike me because that was the terminology we used within the assignment. We just meant by Group, the staff.
Q. But in the sentences before you are merely pointing out that you were his deputy in all matters under Department III. Then you go on to another subject. What happens when Ohlendorf is absent? And you point out that when he is absent that you took over all tasks within the Group. Not within the staff. But within the Group. Now, do you want to tell us that this is a mistake?
A. An interpretation to the effect that by Group the whole Einsatzgruppe would be meant, would be wrong, your Honor. Within the Group can only mean within the staff, as was actually the case. I was not the chief of the higher ranking kommando leaders.
Q. Well, do you then say that anyone unfamiliar with what happened there, reading this statement, and concluding from the statement that you took over all tasks within the Group......anyone so concluding would not read the statement correctly?
A. No, your Honor. If it would say here, in the absence of the commander-in-chief of the army I took over all tasks........this would never mean either the task concerning the divisions because it says here when the commander-in-chief was absent from the army, that means from his H. Q., of the army, and not from the divisions.
Q. Well, we didn't get your answer. Now let me put the question very specifically. Someone who does not know you, and has not heard you testify, picks up this document and wants to know what you did when Ohlendorf was not there, and he reads, "As senior officer on the staff of the Einsatzgruppe I took over all tasks within the Group whenever Ohlendorf was absent from the Group." Now, please keep in mind what I have said. This individual does not know you, and does not know anything about the case. He only has this paper before him. After he has read the paper he says, "My understanding of this document is that when Ohlendorf was not in charge because of his absence, that Seibert took over all tasks within the Einsatzgruppe, that he had control over everything within the Einsatzgruppe"......... would such a person coming to such a conclusion be justified in the conclusion?
A. A person, your Honor, who does not know anything about this matter could come to such a wrong final conclusion, yes.
Q. Then, wasn't it incumbent upon you, when you read this statement, and not knowing who might read it, to correct it if you thought that it was capable of that wrong interpretation?
A. Your Honor, if I had had the peace and the time and also the concentration, of course I would have read the document word for word so that such a thing could not have happened. But if shortly before, and through discussions I had with Mr. Wartenberg, I had told him quite clearly that I was not deputy as far as the kammando leaders were concerned, I could not assume that Mr. Wartenberg, or generally here, these people who deal with these matters here, would come to another final conclusion than the one that is actually correct and which I testified to here.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until one-fifty.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1350 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1350 hours, 19 Nov. '47)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STEIN (Counsel for defendant Sandberger): Your Honor, I ask that, my client Sandberger be excused from this afternoon's and tomorrow's afternoon session to prepare the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Sandberger will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow so that he may confer with his attorney in connection with a document book.
DR. VON STEIN: Thank you.
DR. FRITZ (Counsel for defendant Fendler): I ask that the defendant Fendler be excused from tomorrow's (Thursday's) session in order to prerare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Fendler will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow in accordance with the request of his counsel.
DR. LEIZ (Counsel for defendant Klingelhoefer): Your Honor, I ask that the defendant Klingelhoefer be excused from tomorrow's session, Thursday, and Friday in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Klingelhoefer will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow, Thursday, and the following day, Friday.
DR. LEIZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, did you want to see your client this afternoon?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, this afternoon too, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I didn't understand you to have requested that he be excused this afternoon also.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I requested for this afternoon and for tomorrow afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: For this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon?
DR. VON STEIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Not tomorrow morning?
DR. VON STEIN: Not tomorrow morning - no, not tomorrow morning: just the afternoon
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The defendant Sandberger will be excused this afternoon and will be accompanied by the Provost Marshal and he will be excused also tomorrow afternoon to confer with his counsel.
DR. VON STEIN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) Col.
seibert - Resumed BY MR. WALTON: the initials "I.V.", did you not?
Q And these initials stand for the term "representing" or "in place of" the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe, does it not? gruppe D headquarters a full-time, regular deputy to the chief. If he made out a report over his own signature, would he use the initials "I.V." or not? A I did not get it exactly, you mean above his own signature?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Seibert): Your Honor, I believe this is a hypothetical question.
THE PRESIDENT: The question perhaps was not too clear. Suppose we have it repeated, and then we will see..... BY MR. WALTON: duty in the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D, how would he sign a report, if he had made it out?
A He would sign "Acting For".
Q Under the initials "I.V.", is that not so?
tion in Document Book III-D, page 34, and Document NO-2859, Prosecution Exhibit 148 -
THE PRESIDENT: It is 158.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry: 158. The last sentence in paragraph 2 of our affidavit reads as follows, does it not, and I quote? "The reports which I signed in the capacity of his deputy were signed with 'I.V.". Does your affidavit state that?
WITNESS: Yes; because in your previous example it was an assumption which never existed in the Einsatzgruppe, and here the facts are given as they really were, namely, that I signed "Acting for....." in my sphere, as it had been done according to Ohlendorf's order during his six to eight years' activities. BY MR. WALTON: same Document Book III-D, page 39, which is Document NOKW-628, you admitted that none of these topics were in your sphere, but did you not sign that report under the initials "I.V."?
A May I see the document, Mr. Prosecutor? Without the document I cannot understand the question.
Q Do you have Document Book III D before you?
(Document book presented to witness)
Q And you signed that report after the initials "I.V.", did you not? report was specifically in your sphere as chief of Department III. but my reports to the Army which was my second sphere and what is concerned here.
Q So you signed this as Ohlendorf's deputy?
Q Even though nothing in your sphere is contained in this report? was my sphere, in addition to my sphere as Chief III.
Q Well, don't you think the making-out and signing of reports about all activities is the normal duty of a deputy of an organization like Einsatzgruppe D?
A No; I do not think so because every department chief made out reports, and if the chief was absent and I represented him for this sphere - then I signed them.
Q. All right. Let's go back to your affidavit which we were discussing and which yesterday you testified at great length concerning two executions which you witnessed. This is in III-D, Page 34 of the English, Page 60 of the German, and is Document NO-2859, Prosecution's Exhibit 158. Will you explain to the Tribunal why when you wrote this affidavit or signed this affidavit you did not give any details about the two executions you witnessed?
A. I do not even know whether I was questioned about it, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. You mean that you were not asked a question while you were discussing the material to go into this affidavit whether or not you had participated or seen or had anything to do with the execution of Russian nationals?
A. I do not remember any details.
Q. Well, yesterday when the President of the Tribunal asked you, you remembered great details about these executions, didn't you?
A. As to whether I remembered the details about the day when it happened --no, I did not remember the details; I merely remember what I described yesterday.
Q. Well, why didn't you put these details in this report or in this affidavit?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I do not know whether I was questioned about it.
Q. All right, let's go to the final paragraph. Right above your signature you say that you have read the above statement which consists of four pages in the German language and that you declare this to be the whole truth. Isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, it's not the whole truth because you testified at length concernging two executions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, if the witness states that he was not interrogated on that subject then he cannot be blamed because it is not in the affidavit; because after all it was not he who controlled the interrogation but the interrogator.
Now if you have some evidence that he did talk about this in the interrogation, then you can question him on it, but he cannot be blamed for the omission of anything from the affidavit because that was the matter of the interrogator.
MR. WALTON: I realize that, Your Honor, and in no way mean to argue with the court, but this is supposed to by an affidavit of his activities with the Einsatzgruppen -- the entire affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's very obvious that an affidavit, no matter how long, could not contain every detail of 12 month's work; something would necessarily have to be omitted.
MR. WALTON: That is true, but the two executions which he testified about were of such clarity in his mind yesterday, certainly I am at a loss to understand why he didn't insist that these were included in this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it wasn't for him to insist. Mr. Wartenberg was questioning him and he replied. Then his replies were put into an affidavit and he signed the affidavit. There was no duty on his part to tell Mr. Wartenberg, "How you didn't question me about this; you didn't question me about that."
MR. WALTON: Very well, sir. BY MR. WALTON:
Q. Colonel Seibert, will you turn in Document Book III-D, to Page 65 of the German, Page 36 of the English, to Document NOKW* 629, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 159. I have here in court a photostat copy of the original of that report which I will submit to you.
(Copy submitted to the witness) ished will you so indicate to me?
A. Yes.
(Witness reads the report.)
Q. You signed this report also, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you signed it under the initials "I.V." is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Or as deputy of General Ohlendorf?
A. For my sphere, yes.
Q. Are there any economic questions or domestic questions discussed in this report?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you point out to the Tribunal what they are?
A. On Page 1 it says, in the second paragraph, about the middle of the page, and I quote: "As regards the activity in the areas of settlement of ethnic Germans, I beg to be permitted to refer to the special report which was submitted for your knowledge sometime ago." But the special report is not here.
Q. All right, and it refers to SS-Oberfuehrer Hoffmeyer -HOFFMEYER --head of the liaison office for racial Germans. Did you have any dealings with him?
A. With Hoffmeyer I had no personal dealings no, pardon me, he took over the jobs in the ethnic German territory in which the commando 12 was stationed.
Q. All right. Let's go on to the latter part of this report, and it says, "The following suggestions are submitted for the future activity and assignment of forces that have become available in the meantime." Then it follows that these assignments and locations are given. Is this your work?
A. The designation of the garrisons and assignments was not my job.
Q. Even though you put it in the report?
A. Yes, it says so in the report.
Q. Whose orders was it that the commandos occupied the stated garrisons?
A. It was on the basis of the army order.
Q. All right, then, now let's go to the last paragraph just above your signature. That paragraph states that General Ohlendorf was away from the group, does it not?
A. Yes.
you could give an oral report on the 11th of October? says here.
Q What conference, with whom? the Chief of Staff. Chief of Staff at this conference?
A Well, Mr. Prosecutor, it is completely impossible for me to tell you what was discussed on this particular conference in detail. I had several discussions with the Chief of Staff. Almost daily or almost every other day I spoke with other officers of the Army, so that in detail I could not say. Of course, I spoke about the general situation during those conferences as it could be gathered from the reports, and I reported to him about the situation. assignments? about this; I do not know that any more. the officer who was the Chief of Staff of the Eleventh Army, isn't that a normal function of a deputy when the commanding officer is away from his command?
A No, this is not at all the case. As an information officer for the entire SD reports, I had to report to these offices continually, no matter whether Ohlendorf was present or not.
Q Isn't it one of the functions of a deputy commander to propose future commitments of his group when a commander is not there to give his judgment in the matter?
gruppe he would, of course, have made the suggestion.
Q Well, weren't you acting as deputy for the entire group during this specific time?
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, Mr. Walton has called your attention to that sentence which reads: "The following suggestions are submitted," etc. Now, by whom were those suggestions submitted.
THE WITNESS: They were submitted by the commandos, your Honor, and they were incorporated into the report and summarized.
THE PRESIDENT: Didn't you submit them as the acting commander?
THE WITNESS: I did not, your Honor, but this was summarized by me from the suggestions from the commandos which appeared in the report, and I summarized it in this report.
THE PRESIDENT: If there was any discussion to be made about the suggestions, would the Chief of Staff have conferred with you on them or would he have called in each Einsatzkommando chief?
THE WITNESS: If he would have had any discussions he would have certainly informed me about them, and I would have had the duty to inform the commandos concerning the opinion of the Army. BY MR. WALTON: General Ohlendorf didn't return you could commit these commandos to tactical security questions, could you not?
questions.
Q All right. Let's go back to your affidavit on Page 34 of the English of the same document book, III, which you have, and on Page 60 of the German, your own affidavit, and specifically Paragraph 5 of your affidavit. In Paragraph 5 of this affidavit you stated that it was known to you that members of the Security Police and SD received the order to interrogate camp inmates in the Russian prisoner of war camps and to carry out execution measures. What was the source of your information?
THE PRESIDENT: It was "executive measures". You read it "execution".
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, executive measures. Q (By Mr. Walton): What was the source of your information about screening these prisoners of war in these camps? order which concerned this, but it may also be that I heard it later in Berlin, somehow. It told Mr. Wartenberg at the time clearly that I cannot give any detail, and I do not know at the moment whether this general knowledge was based on an order which I read or whether I heard it through a conversation. I do not know exactly. gruppen or Einsatzkommando personnel? screening team, and from the reports which are now in the documents I read that the orders say that special kommandos are to be formed which are subordinate directly to the chief of the Security Police and that they are to report to him.
personnel of the Einsatzgruppe D? such team in Einsatzgruppe D. which included the execution of prisoners of war?
Q All right. Let's look at Document Book I, Page 54 of the English, Page 62 of the German. This is Document 3414 and is prosecution's Exhibit 14. Look this over and tell the Court whether you have seen this order or a copy of it before.
A I have looked it over, Mr. Prosecutor. As I said, the fact, which is evident from the order, is known to me, but the names mentioned here I do not recall at all, but I cannot say whether I read about it six years ago or not. received a copy of this order? the distribution list that this order was sent to the commandos and to Einsatzgruppe D for their information, but not for their execution of it. copy of this order then, is it not? files of the headquarters of Einsatzgruppe D, woult it not? to this order - midway of Page 55, your Honors, this same document - where it says, "I request that the chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen try to execute the purge of the transit camps with their own forces, as far as possible." Did Einsatzgruppe D have the task to purge the transit camps in its area of activity?
mission, but as I remember the conditions in the Crimea, I did not see any single camp in the Crimea, and I explain the reason to be that we were with a group up in the operational area and the prisoner of war camps were further back. gruppe D, not permanent prisoner of war camps but transit camps? have been one, because in the Crimea prisoners were taken too. So I would assume so. reports to Berlin? leaders in Einsatzgruppe D? that is those who were in the Crimea, the relationship was good. a commando leader? a commando leader. the co-defendant Braune?
A Between Braune and myself? In words and in conversation certainly, for this happened frequently, but a serious dispute, I cannot say.