A I do not know. I know that he maintained contact with the Estonian Luthern Bishop and the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan. Those are the two large confessions in Estonia.
Q Was the synagogue in Reval a pretty large synagogue?
A I do not know any standard. It was the only synagogue in Estonia?
Q The only one in all of Estonia? synagogue? and the other denominational clergy, why don't you know whether he contacted the Rabbi of the synagogue? they told me so.
Q As, and is it bee use the Rabbi didn't exist that he didn't tell you about any contact with the synagogue?
Q You said that he maintained contact with the churches. In making that statement dod you exclude the synagogue--did you in making that statement assume that the synagogue was not a church? we had many churches -- very many small churches, but the Lutheran and the Greek Orthodox are always meant by "churches", and outside of those there are quite a number of small chruches which are not included, in this answer. in your general term "churches"? Is that right, you excluded the synagogue from your answer?
Q You excluded the synagogue?
Q How many Jews were there in Estonia?
Q You excluded all them in your answer on churches? most Jews in Estonia with whom we were on good terms, had withdrawn together with Russian troops, there were very few Jews there at that time, and the Jewish chruch, the synagogue as a guilty was there, but the community as such was practically nonexistent.
Q Did you know that Sandberger int rmed all the Jews of Estonia?
A I did now know that at that time. I asked the Commissioner General Litzmann where the Jews who had been in Estonia had been put for this, after all, was a matter of our fellow citizens. The Commissioner General answered me that the Jews and foreigners had been interned and he pointed to the decree that the Estonian Administration was not competent for Reich Germans, ethnic Germans, Jews and foreigners.
Q Well, you did know that they were interned? been installed.
Q And di you make any complaints about this?
A Yes. I spoke about this matter with the Commissioner General, for, as I said, these were our fellow citizens, and if they were interned, they had to be able to represent their interests, interests which citizens generally have and which are to be fulfilled in the various civilian questions. But the Commissioner General answered me that all these questions have nothing to do with the Estonian administration and according to the decree which I have mentioned it was our duty to refer all questions up to legal decisions, concerning Reich Germans, Ethnic Germans, Jews, or foreigners to the German authorities.
Jews? learned that he was the one who actually interned them? you?
A No. I interested myself for them. had disappeared from the streets of Estonia?
A No, not him. I asked the Commissioner General. you had with him every two or three days to take an interest in these follow citizens who had dissappeared from the life of Estonia? days, did you ever say to him: "Dr. Sandberger, the Jews have dissappeared from Estonia, I heard they were interned; I hope that their citizenship rights are protected," did you ever say anything like that to Sandberger?
A No. I reserved their rights, as far as the General Commissioner as bearer of the German authority is concerned, I spoke for their rights as far as the General Commissioner is concerned.
Q You never spoke to Sandberger about the Jews in any way?
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1.50.
(A recess was taken until 1350 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 17 November 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I have no further questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any defense counsel wish to cross examine? Does the Prosecution desire to cross examine?
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has no desire at all to question this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If you will wait just a minute or two to see if any defense counsel might come in who might have the desire to cross examine. Is Dr. Gawlik here? Yes, here he is.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Dr. Durchholz for the defendant Schulz. Your Honor. Before the case is commenced or so started with the defense, I intend to submit my documents to the Tribunal in the two Document Books I and II. I assume that Dr. Hochwald of the Prosecution will be present. He is being notified just now, so he is coming. Before the case is started again, therefore, I would like the Tribunal to permit me to submit my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means you will be so permitted. The witness Mae will now be excused. (witness excused).
MR. WALTON: If Your Honor please, as I understand the answer of the attorney for the defendant Schulz on the question he wants to submit document books, I just want the record to show that since Dr. Hochwald is familiar with the subject matter. I would like to reserve for him any objections to be made later.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that they had already sent for Dr. Hochwald, so he may be present as the document books are being presented.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, I didn't understand it so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Walton. Dr. Durchholz, have you already submitted a copy of the document books I and II to Mr. Hochwald.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. GLANCY: I expect Dr. Hochwald momentarily, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Does the Tribunal have copies of the books?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: So far as I know the Tribunal has already received these two document books.
THE PRESIDENT: You may now proceed, Dr. Durchholz.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I herewith submit the defense documents for the defendant Schulz. They are Document Books I and II, and I should like to submit the documents in the following order: Under Roman I they are documents which refer to the activity and the promotion of the defendant Schulz within the police department. Under Roman II are the documents which refer to his activity as a police official and a police officer in Bremen during the years of 1923 until 1939 inclusive. Under III are documents which refer to his activity in Gratz for the year 1938. IV: documents referring to his activity in Reichenberg in 1939; V: documents referring to his activity in Hamburg, from 1940 to 1941; VI: documents which refer to his activity as a leader of Group I-B in the RSHA, and as a commander of the Leader-School, or Fuehrerschule of the Security Police in Charlottenburg in 1941 until 1942: VII: documents refering to his activity in the Russian campaign; as leader of Einsatzcommando-V from June until 21 September 1941; VIII: documents refer to his activity as the leader of Group I-A and Office-I in the RSHA from 1942 until 1944, and, finally, IX: documents refer to his activity in Salzburg as commander of the local Security Police Office from 1 April 1944 until the capitulation in May 1945. I may draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the page numbers in the document books as I quote them are also simultaneously the German and English numbers, as the page numbers, etc. are exactly the same in both document books.
the Tribunal. In Document Book I, page 95 I offer as Exhibit No. 1, the Dokument No. 26, which is the dokument of 25 November 1945, concerning the employment of the Defendant Schulz as police official, Hauptwachtmeister. The next document in Document Book I on page 96 is Exhibit No. 2, Document No. 27, that is document dated 25 August 1931 on the promotion of the Defendant to the rank of Polizei-Oberleutnant, that is lieutenant of police. The next document is in Book No. I, on page 97, Exhibit No. 3, Document No. 25, which is the dokument of 29 January 1934, concerning the promotion of the Defendant to a police captain. The next is in Document Book I, on page 98, as Exhibit No. 4, Document No. 29. It is a document dated 26 April 1938, about the transfer of a job as Regierungsrat with the police guard at Bremen. The next is in Document Book No. I, on page 99, as Exhibit No. 5, Document No. 30. This is document dated 8 June 1938, concerning the transfer of the Defendant Schulz to the State Police Office in Gratz, and transfer of this particular office as a subordination. On Page 100 of Document Book No. I, Exhibit No. 6, Document No. 31, which is referring to transfer of 31 May 1939, according to which the Defendant Schulz is appointed to the job in the State Police Office in Reichenberg. The next is in Document Book No. I, on page 101, Exhibit No. 7, Document No. 32, that is the document of 12 April 1940, according to which the defendant was appointed as Commissar Inspector of the Security Police of the military District 10 in Hamburg. Furthermore, in Document Book No. I, on page 102, Exhibit No. 8, Document No. 33, that is the document of 10 July 1940, according to which the defendant is being appointed Oberregierungsrat, Senior Government counsel, in Hamburg. The next is in Document Book I, page 103, Exhibit No. 9, Document No. 34, document dated 28 January 1941, according to which the defendant is promoted to Lt. Colonel. The next in Document Book No. I, on page 104, Exhibit No. 10, Document No. 35, it is document dated 14 February 1941, according to which the defendant is being appointed as group leader in the Office I in the RSHA in Berlin.
Furthermore, in Document Book No. I, on page 105, Exhibit 11, Document No. 26 it is document of 22 February 1941, according to which the Defendant Schulz is promoted Colonel of the Police. Schulz in May 1945, submitted to the American CIC all the original documents and the documents which I have submitted toddy are the remainder of these documents which he got back in Nurnberg; the others were missing.
MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, I would like to know whether Dr. Durchholz intends to submit Document No. 39.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: This will come later, the document which the Prosecutor just mentioned. I shall submit it in connection with the documents concerning the Russian campaign. This is proof material or consisting mainly of affidavits which I shall break down to the following: They were given (a) by members of offices, (b) by political opponents.Concerning Point II, I submit the following questions:
MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, as to this affidavits I want to make a statement. We, of course, have no objection against the offering of these affidavits but we have the reservation, of course, of the right to make an application for the cross examination of one or the other of the file.
THE PRESIDENT: That reservation can be held by every attorney before the Tribunal.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: This is Document Book No. I, page 1, Exhibit No. 12, Document No. 1, which is an affidavit of a criminal senior clerk, Friedrich Rietstaedt. I would like Your Honors to take Document Book No. II. I regret very much not to be able to go through the documents as they come up, that is, Document Book No. I, and then Document Book No. II, but I don't want to disrupt the connections, to current compiling the documents was unfortunately technically impossible, and, I, therefore, ask the Tribunal and also the Prosecution to follow me in this way.
In Document Book No. I, on page 107, it is Exhibit No. 13, which is Document No. 39. It is an affidavit of the criminal commissar, Hans Hafemann. The next document in Document Book No. II, is on page 11, is Exhibit No. 14, Document No. 40, which is an affidavit of the driver Hans Wuelfers. Further, in Document Book II, on page 137, is Exhibit No. 15, Document No. 46, which is an affidavit of the criminal clerk, Alfred Schwarting. Furthermore, in Document Book No. II, on page 114, is Exhibit No. 16, Document No. 41. It is an affidavit of the criminal clerk, Ernst Mueller. Also in Document Book No. II, on pane 115, is Exhibit No. 17, Document No. 42. That is an affidavit of the criminal senior assistant Heinrich Schmitzger. In Document Book II, on page 127, is Exhibit No. 18, Document No. 44, which is the affidavit of the criminal clerk Karl Ripken. In Document Book II, on page 133, is Exhibit No. 19, Document No. 45, which is the affidavit of the criminal clerk, Heinrich Korte.
I would like Your Honors to take up Document Book No. I, on page 23, Exhibit No. 20, Document No. 9, which is the affidavit of the former Police Wachtmeister Karl Roehrssen. In Document Book No. II, on page 179, is Exhibit No. 21, Document No. 60, an affidavit of a former police senator of Bremen, Theodor Laue. I should like this witness not to be mixed up with the government president (Regierungspraesident) Dr. Wolfgang Laue.
THE PRESIDENT: What is a police senator, just for our information, what is the office? I have never heard of it before, a police senator?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Bremen is known as a town of the State or a Free City, and in that sense a police senator in Bremen is an equivalent for Minister of Interior, he was called a police senator there, and it is again so now.
He is called so in the Free German Hanseatic towns, and Hamburg, Bremen and Luebeck today have this same officialship.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, thank you.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: In Document Book No. I on page 36 I offer as Exhibit No. 22, Document No. 13. It is an affidavit of Marguere the Obenauer. In Document Book No. II, on page 12, is Exhibit No. 23, which I offer as Document No. 4. That is the affidavit of Elsa Tronnier. In Document Book No. I, page 14, Exhibit No. 24, Document No. 5, is an affidavit of Sophie Budelmann. In Document Book No. I, page 16, Exhibit No. 25, Document No. 6, is an affidavit of Betty Hickstein. In Document Book No. I, page 18, Exhibit 26, Document No. 7, is an affidavit of Margarethe Kettler.
Now follows an exhibit in Document Book No. II, on page 125, as Exhibit No. 27, Document No. 43. That is the affidavit by Marianne Melchers. Also in Document Book II, on page 186, is Exhibit No. 28 Document No. 63, which is an affidavit of a former Public Prosecutor in Hamburg, Dr. Wilhelm Stegemann, with whom the Defendant Schulz had close permanent official contacts, and, the last document concerning this point is in Document Book No. II, on page 42, Exhibit No. 29, Document No. 14, which is an affidavit of a merchant in Bremen by the name of Verges, a leading Free Mason. All these witnesses confirm briefly the general human attitude of the Defendant Schulz, his absolute tolerant attitude towards political opponents; the same attitude towards the Jews, his open refusal of taking measures against the Jews, e.g. for the reason of their being Jews. Furthermore, his objection to these so-called Jewish pogroms in 1938; his attitude towards the church; his absolute moderate political altitude; his absolute incorruptibility, and impartiality; his attitude towards the questions of protective custody; also his care for the welfare of those in protective custody, and their families during and after the protective custody, and, finally, the respect he was held in by all his subordinates, and by his superiors, and even by political opponents.
Concerning this last point I shall submit a number of affidavits by political opponents. In the Document Book No. I, on page 6, is Exhibit No. 30, Document No. 2, which is the affidavit of a school director of Bremen, Oskar Drees, a leader of a social democratic papter, Reichsbanner, and today the editor of a very important political social democratic paper. Furthermore in Document Book No. I, on page 8, Exhibit No. 31, Document No. 3, which is an affidavit of Albert Meyer.
Also in Document Book I, page 27, Exhibit 32, Document 10. That is the affidavit of Klaus Buecking, whose Communist family members the Defendant Schulz helped and supported. which is the affidavit of a former attorney, today a parson, Kurt Mueller. an affidavit of the present Police President of Bremen, Helmut Ystroem, who is a well-known Free Mason.
In Document Book I, page 29, Exhibit 33, Document 11. This is an affidavit of the editor Alfred Faust, a former Reichstag member for the Social Democratic Party of Germany and Chief Editor of a Social Democratic paper in Bremen, who today is living in France. loyally, cordially and humanely, and when they were in protective custody, he released them, and partly enabled then to get work and supplies. of the Defendant in Graitz. To this point I submit, in Document Book I, on page 44, Exhibit 35, Document 15, which is an affidavit of the former Ambassador and Minister of the Reich, Freiherr Erwin Gudenus. an affidavit of the wife of a university professor, Dr. Edith Spath. affidavit of the Austrian Government Councillor, Wilhelm von Lahousen. vit of the Episcopal Ordinariete , Chancellor, Dr. Josef Steiner (Fuerstbischoeflicher Ordinariatskanzler).
In Document Book II, page 184, Exhibit No. Document 62, an affidavit of the Lord Bishop Dr. Ferdinand Pawlikowski of Graz. of the Graz State Police Office, dealt them as well as with a number of leading Austrian personalities who had been arrested by Austrian National Socialists and either got them out of custody himself or caused their being released from custody.
the defendant in Reichenberg. I submit in Document Book II, page 142, Exhibit 41, Document 47, an affidavit of Police Senior clerk, Fritz Weise. the Defendant Schulz in Hamburg. I submit Document Book I, Exhibit 42, page 59, Document 19, an affidavit of the then Personnel Chief of the Department in the Office of the defendant, Reinhard Breder. as the leader of Gruppe I-b, in the Reich Security Main Office, and as commander of the Security Police, I submit from Document Book I, page 89, Exhibit 43, Document 24, an affidavit of Criminal Councillor Dr. Georg Fleischmann. in the Russian campaign. I submit in Document Book I, page 69, Exhibit 44, Document 20, an affidavit of Karl Weber, who was in Einsatzkommando 5 under Schulz. witness deals explicitly with the statements of the Defendant Schulz on the witness stand concerning the events in Lemberg, and also that he confirms them. an affidavit of Karl Hennicke. This witness also confirms the happenings in Lemberg, and the setting free of the Jews who had been driven together on the Lemberg sport fields. He also talks about the tension in the relationship between Schulz and his superior Gruppen Leader Dr. Rasch, and his Staff Leader Hoffmann. From this explanation it becomes furthermore evident that the Defendant Schulz was never in Kiev.
an affidavit of Helene Loh, who confirms that Schulz in August 1941 was in Berlin. Document 49, an affidavit of Fritz Sperrhake. He confirms that Schulz had rows with Gruppenfuehrer Rasch and often did not obey his campaign for quite some time and stayed in Berlin. 37. That is a letter from Heydrich, of the 26th of September 1941, to the Defendant Schulz, according to which he was released from the leadership of Einsatzkommando 5 and was being recalled to Berlin. document. The defendant stated on the witness stand, that on the 21st of September 1940, as the leader of Einsatzkommando 5, he was released from his job. The date of this document, which is the 26th of September, is explained through the fact that the defendant received the formal note of release only after his return from Russia, in Berlin. His release actually happened on the occasion of his visit in Berlin when he went to see Streckenbach and it was confirmed by him orally. Einsatzgruppe C thereupon had already been told of the release through radio, and the defendant returned only to give over his kommando to his successor, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Meier.
Only for this purpose he returned to Russia and went back to Berlin immediately. 49, the Document 57. That is an affidavit of August Haefner. He confirms that on the 27th of September 1941 the training course of the leaderschool, the Gruppe for the training course of those who were to take part in the Russian campaign, was recalled, and that Schulz then in Berlin expressed his disapproval of the executions of Jews which had been ordered.
the Defendant Schulz as Gruppe Chief I-a, and Chief of Office I of the RSHA. Concerning this point I offer from Document Book II, on page 144, as Exhibit 50, the Document 48. That is an affidavit of the government official, Kurt Dommick. And in Document Book I, page 46, as Exhibit 51, Document 16. That is an affidavit of the government councillor, Regierungsrat, Gustav Gottwald. 17. That is an affidavit of the government councillor, Heinz Wanninger. information service and in executive measures, was in no way native and never responsible; that as a personnel chief he tried to avoid all injustices and other severe measures that he could possibly avoid, and that, therefore, he could not make his way within the Reich Security Main Office. the activity of the Defendant Schulz in Salzburg. Referring to this I submit from Document Book I, page 86, as Exhibit 53, the Document 23. That is an affidavit of Kurt Egmont Damn. an affidavit of the former Gauleiter and Reich Governor of Salzburg, Dr. Gustav Adolf Scheel. davit of the former general, Julius Ringel. an affidavit of the former Police Lieutenant Colonel, Wilhelm Kirchhoff. davit of the former Police Lieutenant Colonel, Otto Barck,retired. vit of Franz Schubert.
affidavit of Government Assessor Karl Peukert. 55, an affidavit of Kaethe Froeschauer. vit of the present Mayor of Salzburg, Anton Neumayr. Document 38. That is a confirmation of the supreme commando of the Army Group G at Leogang, of 17 May 1945, to the effect that the Defendant Schulz had surrendered to the American delegation and had put himself at the disposal of this delegation as far as his person goes. document the name of Schulz has unfortunately often been omitted. In the photo copy , however, which I have just submitted as an exhibit, the name is shown. It is a typing error here. ments made by the Defendant Schulz when he was in the witness stand concerning his activity and his attitude in Salzburg;especially, that the Defendant Schulz propagated unconditional surrender of the town of Salzburg. Schulz - at least for the time being - but I should like the Tribunal to allow me to submit a few very important documents which I could not get so far because of bad mail connections, that I may be allowed to submit them at a later time but still in due time as supplement to my document books. which I have mentioned, and the testimony of the Defendant Schulz, and also other testimonies of other witnesses, an well as other documents submitted by the Prosecution as evidence which I shall reserve for my trial brief which has been suggested and approved by the Tribunal at the end of my case.
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have only one question. Dr. Durchholz has presented an affidavit of a Major Lahousen. I unfortunately do not have the document number, but Dr. Durchholz will certainly know.... I do presume that this affiant is not identical with the witness before the IMT, but I would like Dr. Durchholz to inform the Tribunal and the Prosecution about this fact.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: The affidavit of the witness Lahousen which I have offered is not made by the well-known Lahusen who was a witness during the IMT trial, but I believe he is a brother, or at least a relative, of that witness. In any cane, this witness Lahousen whose affidavit I have submitted up to this point has never been mentioned in connection with these trials and has never been heard an a witness yet. At the time, I think, he was a major in the Austrian Army.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will contain your clarification.
Dr. Gawlik, will you proceed now, please. stand. as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me: will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Give the Tribunal your first and your surname.
A. Willy Seibert.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. On the 17th of June 1908, in Hannover.
Q. Please, describe for the sake of the Tribunal your life until the year 1935.
A. My youth I spent first in the country near Hannover, and then I lived in Hannover; I went to secondary school there. I left school Master 1928, after I had passed my matriculation. My father had been a merchant by profession. I myself intended to become a building merchant, and be active in building administration and take up an activity in this field. For this purpose I wanted to study building and economics. My father was killed in the first world war. He had no property, so that before I could begin my studies I had to work on various building sites near Hannover, and on the Midland Canal near Hannover, in sluice building. Thus I worked practically in order to earn myself some money, and at the same time I trained myself in craft.......which would be of value in my building, activities.
school in Hannover, and I studied building, and at the same time economics. I studied for four terms on the whole, but during the holidays and also during two of the terms, I worked practically as a mason. From Hannover I went, after four terms, to Goettingen University.......economics again.... that laster for four terms; and after four terms, I graduated. I passed my State examinations at the Goettingen University, and received a diploma in economics.
Q. When was that?
A. That was in the autumn of 1932.
Q. What was your further activity from then on?
A. I attempted to join the Chamber of Trades in Hannover, or in other economic establishments, but at that time I could not get any work. Then I learned at the University of Goettingen, through a poster which I saw, that referendars and all kinds of young students were given the opportunity to become a soldier and later on if they proved themselves suitable, they would be promoted to officers. This opportunity I made use of because I imagined that after I had been promoted an officer I could join some administrative unit of the Army, and I could thus make use of my professional training and could work in the sphere of my interest.
Q. How long were you a soldier?
A. On the 1st of November 1932 I join ed Infantry Regiment No. 17 at Goettingen, as a private, and I remained a soldier until autumn 1935.
soldier?
A During this period I was trained as an infantry soldier; later, as a non-commissioned officer, a platoon leader, and then a company leader of a motorized unit. But in between for some time, I was detached for training schools by the Chief of Training Affairs of the Army. That was an independent organization. In the summer and autumn of 1935, I was active in the infantry school in Doebritz near Berlin. I went through an officer's training course and after that I joined the guard-battalion in Berlin--Wach Battalion--where I passed the practical part of my examination for an officer. That was in the autumn--I think it was October 1935.
Q What activities did you carry out in the following years? economic expert--a Referent, in the SD Information Service.
Q How did it come about that you joined the SD? met, quite by accident in a Berlin restaurant, an acquaintance of mine who was meanwhile employed in this SD organization as an expert on agricultural questions. During our conversation I told him about my professional aims, and then he explained to me the tasks of this SD organization and the specialized training with this organization. He asked me whether I could succeed in being transferred from the army to the SD if I received the same rank and the same field of tasks in this economy department. I told him that I had, on various occasions, spoken to my superior officers of Defense District III, the personnel department of Berlin, and had asked for a transfer into the administration unit of the army. The major of this department in Defense District III liked me, but he could not help me because there were very few openings, or at least jobs, which were not taken yet. I therefore suggested that there would be a possibility to join this SD organization holding the same rank and dealing with the question of economy--that is the field I was trained in-
and this major-get me this transfer to the SD. the SD? Berlin, I had not known anything at all about the existence of the SD; therefore, I did not know about the tasks of the SD.
Q Were you a member of the SS in those days?
Q Did you leave the Wehrmacht when you joined the SD? officer and every year I served with the Wehrmacht, for a certain time and I remained a reserve officer until the end of the war. not, or did you join the SS voluntarily?
AAt that time; I joined the SD and with that I automatically became a member of the SS-formation, the SD. I was never a member of the General SS. I never did a day's service in the fomations of the SS and I was not a member either of the Waffen SS or the armed SS. German and Page 50 in the English, Exhibit 152, Document No. NO-2969. It's the promotion suggestion of the 14 January 1943. When did you learn about this document for the first time? submission of documents by the Prosecution. SA from the first of May 1933 and that you were a member of the SS from the 6 November 1935. Are these statements correct?