A No, I held no full-time office. I did my service apart from my professional activities during my free evening hours, and during week-ends in my spare time.
Q Did you hold or achieve any rank in the Hitler Youth? of Scharfuehrer. non-commissioned officer? be no comparison with a military rank.
Q In any case it was the lowest rank, wasn't it? perform any function? least, in the organization of political leadership, the PO; I never held any office in this.
Q What professional traning did you have? administrative official in or become a candidate for the Interior Administration. At that time, that was the beginning of April 1931, all administrative agencies to which one could apply were filled up, and I could not find a job. Thereupon, on 1 April 1931, I entered a lawyer's office as an apprentice in Berlin. I was to take a training period of three years, but they exempted me from the third year so that after two years of training I became a Registrator in this same lawyer's office. This position I held until August inclusive, of 1933. At this period I had the possibility to get into administrative work, and I accepted a job as a candidate for the administrative service the Bremen Reich Deputy Office, the Representative of Bremen for the Reich.
That was the office of the representative of the free city of Bremen in the Reich Government. There I remained for thirteen months, and had prepared myself for the examination as an administrative secretary, which, however, I was not able to take, because this particular office had been dissolved by Reich Law at the time the Reich Council was dissolved, and I, as the youngest member of the staff, and as the one who had worked there the shortest time, had to leave first. That was within the course of events.
Q When and how did you join the SD? administrative service. I didn't suceed in this, despite the strong support of my former superiors. In the search for a new appointment, I happened to meet a former comrade of mine from the Hitler's Youth who at this time had joined the SD. He told me that the SD at this time had just been transferred from Munich to Berlin, and was urgent looking for men who had been trained in administrative work, and he suggested to me, as he was aware of the fact that I had lost my job, that I apply for a job in the SD. I accepted this offer, and I applied to the then SD Main Office in Berlin. That was on 10 October 1934. On this particular day I was taken into the SD as a member of the NSDAP.
Q Did you join the General-SS on this occasion? formation of the SS, but I never became a member of the socalled General (Allgemeine)-SS. Furthermore, I never served in this General-SS for even as much as one day.
SD and what did your activity consist of? 1936, and then again from the 1st of November 1938 until the beginning of August 1939 I was an auxiliary worker in the then SD Main Office. That was in the Department I/13, that was the registration office of the SD Main Office, and I dealt with the various branches of registration machinery and I dealt with all registrar work that came up. My main activity, however, was to keep a diary of all letters. That means to register the letters coming in and going out. At the beginning of August 1939 I was transferred to the Office I of the Reich Security Main Office. I must correct myself here. I had already been a member of Office I; I was transferred to the personnel department of the SD Main Office, again only as an auxiliary employee and I handled the filing of personnel directives according to instructions of my superiors. I corrected personnel documents and I kept personnel statistics up to date. That was my general activity as an auxiliary member of the personnel department. In the summer of 1940, after I had been promoted to Untersturmfuehrer in the SD, I received a T/O job in Office I - that was the first and the lowest T/O position to be held by an SD officer. I became a so-called Departmental expert in the Personnel Department of the SD. In this function I again worked on personnel directives for the special sector of this department, again according to instructions of my superiors. From October 1941 until September 1943 inclusive I held the position of an adjutant. I shall come back to that in detail at a later point. F rom October 1943 until November 1944 inclusive I held the job of an auxiliary departmental official in Group III-B of the Reich Security Main Office. In this office I dealt with personnel matters within Group III-B, that is, the internal personnel administration and, beyond that, internal organizational matters and the general supervision of the registration and files of this Group III-B. On the first of December 1944 I was detailed to the SD Sector Augsburg and I was entrusted with the leadership of Department III-B. In this department I only had to deal with the information service in the domestic sphere, ethnic Germans and public health for the Administrative District Suabia (Schwaben). This job I held until 26 April 1945.
On this day the office of this sector was dissolved. these jobs you held? had any power of independent decision. At no time whatsoever.
Q Where were you from 1936 to 1938? You omitted that time before. Armed Forces. I was a soldier from 15 October 1936 until 29 October 1938. I did active service at the time in the 38th Armored Reconnaissince Bn in Stahnsdorf near Berlin.
Q That was a Wehrmacht Unit, wasn't it?
Q What training did you get there? as an infantry soldier and as a radio operator. After this training for a year I was trained as a company clerk, that is, as a noncommissioned officer dealing with clerical jobs. During the last seven months of my service I commanded a signal detachment in an Armored Signal Bn.
Q What was your last military rank? charged. When I was released from active service in the Wehrmacht I was made a non-commissioned officer in the Reserves. 1939?
in the personnel department of the SD. That was Department I-A-4 of the Reich Security Main Office.
Q Were you called up for the Wehrmacht when war broke out?
A No, I was not. That wasn't even possible. I may explain that perhaps. As full-time member of the SD in July or August 1939 I received a so-called mobilization order. This mobilization order provided that the holder of this order in the case of a mobilization had to remain at the place where he worked. In addition to this, at the outbreak of the war, a special notification was put into my military papers. That was the order to the effect that I was essential for the SD, In addition to this, apart from the mobilization order which explicitly said that a voluntary enlistment for military service would be without avail in case of mobilization and, therefore, should not be done. In addition to this, from the outbreak of the war, members of the SD came under special jurisdiction of the Security Police and SD. A violation of all of these regulations and orders would have had as its consequence punishment according to this regulation of the SD and police jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that service in the SD from the beginning of the war had been declared a special war service, and therefore nobody had any reason whatsoever to leave this war service and to apply for service in the Wehrmacht. That was practically impossible and, therefore, nobody could apply for service in the Wehrmacht independently in order to be called up. never apply voluntarily for service in the Wehrmacht? just once, because I believed that I had a special reason which would guarantee success so that I could join the Wehrmacht. After I had lost my wife and child in a bomb attack in August 1941 I applied to the chief of the Security Police and SD asking that I be released to the Army and that my essential status in the SD be revoked.
I was convinced that this application would be approved, but I was most disappointed when the application was refused on the basis of existing regulations decreed by Heydrich and Himmler.
in the SD? Russian campaign? personnel decree was issued and this ordered the release of the candidates for the so-called leaders' service who at the time were active in the Russian campaign. Within the program of these releases I was chosen as relief in this action and I received a written order to join Einsatzgruppe D. Within two days I was to prepare myself to leave and had to start for the garrison of Einsatzgruppe D.
Q What did you at the time know concerning the Einsatzgruppen?
AActually not much more than the name. Of course, I had been told that during the Polish campaign so-called Einsatzgruppen had been set up. The same is also true, if I remember rightly, for other assignments, for instance, in Norway at the beginning these units were also called Einsatzgruppen. Of course, I also knew that at the beginning of the Russian campaign so-called Einsatzgruppen had been formed for that theater of operations also. Furthermore, from the orders of the Security Police and SD this order is the same as an administration gazette in other administrative offices, it might be called a circular. This circular contained lists of casualties from the beginning of the Russian campaign, members of the Security Police and SD who had been killed in the service of such Einsatzgruppen. That was essentially the knowledge that I had concerning the term Einsatzgruppen.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, I didn't quite follow that last answer. Would the witness please repeat it. I didn't quite catch the drift of just what he was aiming at in that answer.
DR. KOESSL: Please repeat very briefly what you knew about the Einsatzgruppen when you received this special order?
A I did know that Einsatzgruppen existed. I know the actual term Einsatzgruppen.
I knew that they had been active in Poland, Norway, and now also in Russia. Apart from that, however, I had concrete knowledge that they were also active in Russia - these so-called Einsatzgruppen. This knowledge I had received from the so-called gazettes from which I saw notices concerning men who had been killed in action - men who were members of the Security Police and SD and who served in these Einsatzgruppen.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. You are telling us that you saw reports indicating that men assigned to Einsatzgruppen had been killed. they were official circulars which went to all service organizations of the Security Police and SD.
DR. KOESSL: These were casualty reports, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: They were the usual casualty lists which appear in the newspapers during a war announcing those in the Armed Forces who had lost their lives?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that didn't give you much knowledge just what Einsatzgruppen meant, did it?
A No. I had no knowledge about that. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q To whom did you report in Berlin before you left? who was an officer holding the rank of Major, a Sturmbannfuehrer. missions of the Einsatzgruppen?
A No. On that occasion I was in no way informed about the task of the Einsatzgruppen, but I merely received my marching order to report to Einsatzgruppe D. I may add that at the time my superiors in this office could not even tell me where I could find Einsatzgruppe D. I first had to find out about the garrison of this unit which I was to join.
Q What did you imagine your job would be in this Einsatzgruppe? One was a purely military assignment. The second possibility was an administrative activity in this unit. I had the professional training for both of these possibilities.
Q Where and when did you report to Einsatzgruppe D in Russia? the southern Ukraine when I reported to the staff of Einsatzgruppe D. The chief of Einsatzgruppe D at the time was SS-Oberfuehrer Ohlendorf.
Q Wasn't he a Standartenfuehrer at the time?
A I don't know whether he was still Standartenfuehrer. Any way it was about the time that he was promoted from Standartenfuehrer to Oberfuehrer.
Q Had you known Ohlendorf previously?
A I had not known Ohlendorf personally before. Of course I was aware that he was chief of Office III of the Reich Security Main Office, but I think I can say with certainty that before this date I had never seen him consciously.
Q Were you alone when you reported there?
A No, I wasn't the only one. Apart from myself there were nine other officers, who had been detailed to Einsatzgruppe D as replacements who arrived together with myself at the office of the chief of Einsatzgruppe D. Einsatzgruppe D? of the Einsatzgruppe to the effect that it was the mission of the Einsatzgruppe to secure the rear Army territory and the operational area of the 11th Army. I think, but I am not sure, that on this occasion the so-called Barbarossa order was also mentioned. Furthermore, and this seemed to me of special importance to Ohlendorf, he carefully screened each one of these ten officers He went into great detail.
He asked about personal details. He asked for the curriculum vitae of each individual with special emphasis on the professional training, and special training in branches of Security Police and SD in order to be able to find out what special activity this particular officer would be best fitted for. It depended on this screening how each officer was to be employed.
Q Was the Fuehrer order mentioned on this occasion?
Q When and in what connection did you learn about the Fuehrer order? the first time at the end of October 1941. The circumstances were briefly the following. During the period in which Ohlendorf was on an official trip to Berlin I had started to work myself into the department to which I was assigned. I received the reports in this office which had been put at my disposal, the reports which the individual Kommandos had sent to the Einsatzgruppe and I received knowledge of the reports of the Einsatzgruppe to the Reich Security Main Office.
I can't say for certain today what was the occasion which made me think - which made me suspect - -
THE PRESIDENT: I am a little confused here as to what reports he is speaking of. I thought that he was telling us about the reports he received. Now it would appear that he is talking about reports which were sent out.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I spoke about the reports deposited in this office. These were reports from the kommandos to the Einsatzgruppe D as well as reports of the Einsatzgruppe D to the Reich Security Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, then you saw both types of reports, those which came in and those which had been sent out or were to be sent out.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. In these reports information was contained about so-called resettlements which had taken place, and I already said that I do not remember the exact occasion which caused me to see in this term "resettlement" a camouflaged expression for executions. I intended then to find out in detail and when Herr Ohlendorf returned I asked him concerning this matter, and on this occasion , in this discussion, I was enlightened about the content of the Fuehrer Order, but Ohlendorf also told me on this occasion that I would have nothing to do with the carrying out of this order. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Did you agree with the Fuehrer Order? now. I can only say that when I learned of the content of this Fuehrer Order I was deeply shocked, mainly about the fact that one could expect people to carry out an order of such tremendous consequences, that people could actually be expected to execute such an order. Furthermore, in my own position I was completely helpless in the fact of the facts with which I was confronted.
Q What did Ohlendorf tell you then concerning your own employment? I should be the successor of the adjutant who had been released, and he also put me in charge of the orderly room of the staff of the Einsatzgruppe D. officer in charge of the orderly room.
A My tasks as adjutant were relatively small. The reason for this was mainly that Ohlendorf refused personally to have any office machinery for his own personal needs. As the adjutant I had to make appointments for official visits and to receive the visitors in the office. Apart from that there were occasions from case to case to carry out work within the regular field of activities of an adjutant. For instance, when Herr Ohlendorf wanted to go on an official trip it was then my task to assist him in getting the necessary maps, to note down the route, and similar matters. As the supervisor of his office I was entrusted with the supervision of the office work; that is, in this office as far as registration and files are concerned, the correspondence between the Einsatzgruppe on one hand and the kommandos or the various offices of the Wehrmacht on the other hand was filed end taken care of. The complete correspondence went through this office and was there registered according to incoming and outgoing mail. office? the officer in charge of this office, I had one clerk who at the same time, apart from this activity in the office, was the clerk of the chief and also a radio operator. Therefore, this one man did not only come under my exclusive supervision.
Q Did this T/O correspond to an office of a military unit? military unit. If I may make a comparison at all with a military unit, which never is quite fortunate, then I would compare the staff of the Einsatzgruppe D in its T/O with the staff of a regiment. In such a regimental staff, however, there was a so-called staff sergeant.
This staff sergeant did not exist in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe. Therefore, this function of a staff sergeant was also taken over by me in this case with the effect that in addition to my duties I had to deal with billeting, and I had to make out plans for sentry duties, and I had to deal with main as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, if you compare the Einsatzgruppe headquarters to regimental headquarters, following out that comparison, would you say then that the kommando headquarters would be comparable to battalions and the sub-kommandos to company units, or would that rather be a forced comparison?
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, if I may say so openly, even the comparison between Einsatzgruppe Staff and regimental staff is very far-fetched, and any conclusion that could be drawn from this concerning kommandos would be equally far-fetched, I only compared it in order to give a comparison of numbers, of the numbers of the staff, and I only made this comparison in order to give a sort of comparison in the strength of personnel, but actually, or as far as service is concerned, there are no possibilities of comparison here because the Einsatzgruppen and the kommandos are, to be sure, military units, so-called mobile units. but were differently organized and sub-divided than a military unit.
THE PRESIDENT: If you were going to compare them at all, I presume the Einsatzgruppen could be compared more easily to a battalion and the kommandos to companies rather than the way you first put it.
THE WITNESS: If I am to deduce this from the number of the personnel then, of course, Your Honor is right. Of course in that case Einsatzgruppe D at best corresponds to a military battalion.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Doctor. BY DR. KOESSL:
with the internal service? Einsatzgruppe? of course, I could give directives for his service in the office, I could give no directives to anyone in the Einsatzgruppe. of the office?
A Generally, yes. I can, of course, not exclude the possibility of actually not having found out about a number of proceedings, but I would like to state here that theoretically, of course, I had the possibility of examining any matter which was mentioned in the mail that came in and went out because all the documents were in the office. kommandos? Security Main Office and to the Army?
Q Did you participate in the making out of such reports? kind or parts thereof?
Q Did you ever sign a report? in that case, of course, never.
Q Will you now look at Document Book III_D, English page 34, of the German, page 60 , Document NO-2859. It is Exhibit 158. It is an affidavit of the co-defendant Seibert, in which it says under No. 2 it is on page 1 of the original - I quote, "Although Ohlendorf, as well as his adjutant, Schubert, from time to time prepared their own reports, the making out of reports was one of my main duties."
That is the end of my quotation. What can you comment on this way of putting it? A I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the casein-chief of the prosecution, on page 255 of the English transcript, where it says, and I quote, under paragraph 2 of the document, that is the affidavit Seibert, it says, "It is shown that the defendant Schubert from time to time prepared certain reports of Einsatzgruppe D."
Q What do you have to comment then on these formulations?
A I beg your pardon for just one moment. I haven't quite found the place.
Q You mean in the case of the prosecution?
Q It is in the document book, page 60 at the bottom. It is the next-to-the-last line on page 60.
A. Yes, thank you, I have got it. Seibert testified here to the effect that although Ohlendorf as well as myself prepared our own reports from time to time the making out of reports was one of his main duties.
He furthermore deseribes the content matter of these reports but it seems tome of importance to clarify that this way of putting it, in the case-in-chief of the prosecution, concerning the omission of the defendant Seibert, that Schubert from time to time made out certain reports, and this does not say which reports, that this omission, however, should refer to the reports mentioned by Saibert in his affidavit; that would be a false assumption. From time to time in this program of reporting, I made out documents concerning personnel changes and changes of garrison within the field of activities of the Einsatzgruppe D. These documents which were made out from time to time for Berlin in order to give them an idea on the regional and personal structure and in order to keep their reports up to date, these documents, therefore, I made out; and only to that extent did I personally or my clerk take part in making out reports because these documents were made out all at a certain time for a certain report and were contained in such a report.
Q. Do you know of any data concerning executions in such reports?
A. Yes, I know about such data.
Q. Did these individual reports from the Kommandos, contain any figures concerning executions?
A. In the various reports figures concerning executions were mentioned.
Q. Did the reports of the Einsatzgruppe to the Reich Security Main Office contain any figures of executions?
A. Yes, but not all reports; some reports, especially the radio reports to Berlin, contained figures.
Q. Did you have any id*a concerning the total figure of executions?
A. At no time whatsoever. In spite of the knowledge that executions took place and in spite of figures mentioned in the reports I had no idea concerning the total number of people who were executed; never, and I could not have any such idea.
That was practically impossible.
Q. On the 30th of September in the afternoon , page 251 in the English transcript, it is in German 256, the prosecution read a contradiction into your statements on page 7 of your affidavit of the 4th of February, 1947, Document Book I, English page 17, German page 19, No-2716, Exhibit 4. The Prosecution sees the contradiction in the fact that you first maintained that younever knew how many people were executed altogether on the one hand, and that you say yourself that the written reports which went to Berlin contained the exact number of people who were executed. Will you clarify this alleged contradiction?
A. I think that if the prosecution reads a contradiction into my Statement the reason must be in my affidavit. This phrasing , especially of no. 7 in my affidavit. is partly so unfortunate, that somebody who does not know the actual conditions can either not see anything from this or can also see that what the prosecution wants to read into it, mistakenly. In this Figure 7 of my affidavit I said, or shall we say that I signed the wording as it was put by Mr. Wartenberg, and I gave details about the two ways of reporting of Einsatzgruppe D to Berlin. On the one hand, I spoke of radio reports in which figures were also transmitted, which, however, I did not get to know, and I said why I could not have known about them. Then I explained the second way of reporting, that is those reports which went to Berlin as written reports , via army mail or via courier. As for content of these written reports, the wording for it was chosen by Mr. Wartenberg, and I quote, "These reports contained exact data and descriptions of those places in which the operations had taken place. " I may now come back to the wording in theprosecution's case-in-chief. Here it says, "I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Schubert's claim which is contained in Paragraph 7 of his affidavit of the 24th of February, 1947."
Here I may clarify this and say that it should be 4th of February. It is evidently a mistake. Furthermore, it says, two sentences later he says that he did not know the exact number of people executed, but I am now talking about the content of the reports concerning the activity of the group which went regularly to the headquarters in Berlin. He says that these reports contained exact details anddescriptions of the places in which these operations actually took place. I can, therefore, only refer these statements to the radio reports, and if the prosecution really understands it to this effect then this conclusion is wrong, because here they connect the word "operations" with the executions which had been mentioned before, but the written reports which I talked about and which I explained, contained mainly information about operations and the places in which these operations took place, but in no place whatsoever does it say that these operations or actions meant executions which had been carried out. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Well, did you see the reports before they were sent out?
A. Whether I saw the reports which were sent out?
Q. Yes, did you see the reports?
A. I don't say basically before they were sent out, your Honor, but I had the chance to see them either before, that is theoretically possible, but in any case after they had been sent out when the copies were filed.
Q Yes, well, then, I don't know that you have answered Dr. Koessl's question, namely, that you should explain the inconsistency between the statement that you did now know how many were killed and the statement that the reports contained the numbers killed. You have quoted from that paragraph, but you didn't go--you did not go to the phrase which indicates the number "number of places destroyed and persons killed". Now, when you signed this affidavit you saw that wording, didn't you?
Q Well, doesn't that very clearly state that the reports indicated the number of persons killed? because it is not clear enough, and I may remind the Tribunal of the fact that my defense counsel, when Mr. Wartenberg was called into the witness stand for cross examination, that my defense counsel asked Mr. Wartenberg about this wording and its unclarity, and I may remind Your Honor that it was you who said, "Yes, if it isn't very clear, then it is not very clear". BY DR. KOESSL: what operations are concerned on that particular point where it says in your affidavit. "the number of villages destroyed and people killed"-- what operations or actions were you speaking about in this particular point of the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Dixon calls to our attention that this statement appears twice in your affidavit; in paragraph 6 this sentence appears. "The reports of these leaders arriving at our headquarters were written in the manner prescribed by Chlendorf and also contained information as to the number of Russians and Jews executed". That is in paragraph 6. BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, what figures were you referring to? We are now discussing reports containing figures of executions. Did these reports only contain 5 Jan 1947_M_MSD_7_2_Spears (Hildesheimer) the figure of one single execution or did these reports calculate cumulatively from the last figure in order to give a total figure of execution and people executed by this Einsatzgruppe up to that period?
Einsatzgruppe to Berlin were not based on a previous figure that had been reported about before. Therefore, the sum total of all the executions that had taken place after that date was not reported.
Q But figures were contained? quite clear that I knew about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that the statement which apparently I made some time ago stands, that if it isn't very clear, it isn't very clear, so let us have a recess for 15 minutes.
( A recess was taken)